The lawsuit was filed by Hoda’s father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, as “next friend” of Hoda and her young son. The complaint is “verified”, meaning that the filer has signed a sworn statement that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. Because Hoda Muthana is not able to verify the contents of the complaint with her sworn signature, her father is doing so on her behalf. The complaint seeks a declaration recognizing his daughter and her son as citizens, a mandate of relief that would obligate the U.S. to accept the pair into the country and “use all available means to do so”, and an injunction which would allow Mr. Muthana to send his daughter money to assist her return home without subjecting himself to criminal charges of aiding terrorism.

The facts set forth in the complaint allege that Mr. Muthana was terminated from his position as a diplomat and required to surrender is diplomatic identity card in June of 1994; Hoda was born in October of the same year. His wife, Hoda’s mother, began the process of applying for permanent residency earlier that year in anticipation of the loss of diplomatic status. Hoda Muthana was issued a birth certificate by the state of New Jersey, where she was born. Her first passport was issued in January 1995.

A decade later, the Muthanas sought a second passport for Hoda, but the State Department this time questioned Hoda’s citizenship because their records showed Mr. Muthana’s diplomatic status was in effect until February of 1995. Mr. Muthana produced a letter, on United Nations letterhead and signed by Russell F. Graham, Minster Counselor, Host Country Affairs, which stated that Mr. Mathuna’s diplomatic status ended no later than September 1, 1994. Apparently satisfied of Hoda’s citizenship, the State Department issued the passport.

In 2016, however, subsequent to Hoda’s joining with ISIS, the Obama administration sent a letter to her parents’ address in Alabama, notifying her that her passport had been revoked. The State Department had determined that the passport was issued “illegally, fraudulently, or erroneously”. The letter recognized the termination date of September 1, 1994, as indicated by the letter issued in 2004. However, the letter continued:

…the United Nations, Host Countries Affairs Section was not officially notified of his termination from this position until February 6, 1995. Therefore, your father remained in diplomatic status when you were born on October 28, 1994. As such, you wer not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution…”

So, while President Trump appeared to declare via Twitter edict that Hoda Muthana was not a citizen and could not return, his words, and the subsequent agreement of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, were actually echoing an Obama-era determination. While it certainly fits within the anti-immigration, anti-Muslim rhetoric expected from Trump, in this case, outrage is misplaced (to the extent outrage is appropriate at all).

The lawsuit acknowledges the position of the State Department but attempts to cite inconsistent prior positions of the government. Without a detailed dive into the cited case, suffice to say it is not directly analogous and is likely of dubious precedential value. 1

The question of diplomatic immunity is at the heart of this case, and perhaps the courts are the best place to solve it. However, the government will likely ask the Court to dismiss Mr. Muthana’s lawsuit for lack of “standing”; normally, one cannot bring a suit on behalf of the interest of others except in certain circumstances. In 2010, the father of American citizen and terror suspect Anwar Al-Aulaqi filed suit as “next friend” against the U.S. government for placing Al-Alaqi on the “kill list”. The Court dismissed the suit, finding that the father lacked standing because 1)Al-Alaqi could have presented himself to the US embassy in Yemen and brought suit himself, were he not hiding from the government; and 2)his father was not committed to his son’s interests, because there was no indication Al-Alaqi wanted to avail himself of the Courts or justice system. Muthana’s father may have an easier time with the “standing” test, since there is no embassy at which she can present herself, and she has gone on record asking for the relief her father seeks on her behalf.

For now, we wait for the response of the U.S. government and for the legal proceedings to unfold. Hoda Muthana remains in a refugee camp with her child. And like any and all legal questions, the answer to whether she is permitted to return and under what circumstances is “it depends.”

Share this:

The case involved a diplomat who was accused of committing a crime while still under diplomatic protection. The man did not leave the country when his status ended, and he was prosecuted. He challenged his indictment because the alleged incident occurred while he was still a diplomat. The Court agreed with the position of the State Department that U.S. jurisdiction exists “over persons whose status as members of the diplomatic mission has been terminated[,] for acts they committed during the period in which they enjoyed privileges and immunities…” This does not resolve the question presented in Muthana over when, exactly, Mr. Muthana’s immunity ended.

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

One doesn’t know whether to laugh, cry, punch a wall, or drink. As a federal bureaucrat and scientist, one is inclined to do the last two in sequence since this all seems to hinge on narrow (IMHO too narrow) reading of a dubiously kept administrative record – albeit the best record apparently available. If I read it all correctly – and remember your last post correctly – the State Department having unilaterally revoked her passport means she MAY be a Yemani citizen or she MAY be stateless, or she MAY be a US citizen but essentially accused by State of having unilaterally renounced her citizenship when the record is ambivalent.

Frankly this all strikes me the same way the debate about DACA folks strikes me – children brought (or born) in the US to parents of non-linear immigration status, who then as adults want to make a life here are still being run out of the country by fearful old white men even though in the abstract they are assimilating the very way those same old white men say they should. As I noted the other day in less colorful terms – all this because she essentially gave her lady parts to ISIS and has come to the realization its not a good lifestyle choice for raising kids.

I would argue it was much more than than. She is accused of actively recruiting online for them, and of course there’s the matter of her advocating for Muslims in America to kill as many Americans as possible, including the President.Report

Mexico has a few non-profits that are attempting to assimilate DACA people into Mexican life. That’s how assimilated they are. Many of them do not even speak Spanish or at least don’t read and write it.Report

That’s a good point – and part of where I was lazily going with my original comment. If the US could issue a passport – the only one she’s had if I remember correctly – and then revoke it unilaterally, I’d say she’s subject to our jurisdiction.

And another thing that just occurred to me – if her mother was going through the legal immigration process before her birth – in anticipation of her husband’s eventual end of diplomatic status – doesn’t that mean the mother was “subject to the jurisdiction of . . .” and therefore her offspring would also be especially if born on US soil?Report

“If the US could issue a passport – the only one she’s had if I remember correctly – and then revoke it unilaterally, I’d say she’s subject to our jurisdiction.”

The passport was revoked on the grounds that it was improperly issued, so not necessarily.

“And another thing that just occurred to me – if her mother was going through the legal immigration process before her birth – in anticipation of her husband’s eventual end of diplomatic status – doesn’t that mean the mother was “subject to the jurisdiction of . . .” and therefore her offspring would also be especially if born on US soil?”

Fair point of argument!

(sorry, have not figured out how to properly quote on the new system yet!)Report

children brought (or born) in the US to parents of non-linear immigration status, who then as adults want to make a life here

My argument would be that the young woman didn’t want to make a life here but wanted to join ISIS and that changes the dynamic significantly from a DACA young woman who wants to go to college and get a degree in Interpersonal Communication before going to law school and becoming one of those lawyers you see on commercials during daytime television.Report

Then let me redirect to point out that in both cases, some in the US wish to essentially hold the children to account for decisions their parents made or didn’t make or didn’t document properly in a timely fashion. Which goes against the grain of everything I’ve learned about kids and the law as a layperson int he US.Report

I think that there *IS* a difference between parents who come here and bust their asses across the border to make a better life for themselves and their children and diplomats who live here while they’re not living there.Report

The Dreamers claim to citizenship is that they’re Americans in spirit even if they didn’t technically follow the law. I’m cool with that. Her claim to citizenship is very technical because not only is she’s not an American in spirit but she actively tried to end America.

If we’re going to give her a mulligan for what her parents did and hold her accountable for her own decisions, I’m not sure her life improves. She’s not starting with a blank slate here. If she’s a citizen then she always has been, ergo she’s a traitor, joined a heinous criminal organization for the purpose of furthering it’s ends, etc.

What is she expecting? Is she offering to plead guilty to her various crimes and spend the next 40 years in prison? It sounds like she doesn’t understand she’s done anything wrong and just wants her childhood environment back for her kids. It’s not clear she’s even given up (or regrets) trying to get vast numbers of people murdered because they’re not members of her sect.Report

“…A decade later, the Muthanas sought a second passport for Hoda, but the State Department this time questioned Hoda’s citizenship because their records showed Mr. Muthana’s diplomatic status was in effect until February of 1995….”

“…the United Nations, Host Countries Affairs Section was not officially notified of his termination from this position until February 6, 1995. Therefore, your father remained in diplomatic status when you were born on October 28, 1994. As such, you wer not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution…”

Irrespective of failures to notify X or Y people or entity, I would argue that the effectiveness of the termination of diplomatic status should be a finding of fact based on when Yemen (the employer) terminated his diplomatic posting in THE UN, and based on whatever agreements exist between the UN, the USA (and Yemen, if applicable), related to the remnant of immunity departing diplomats might enjoy while they are on their way out.

If, instead of having a daughter, Mr Hoda had murdered someone on October 26, 1994, I doubt the USA would argue “well, Yemen had terminated your post, but don’t worry, since the paperwork had not yet been received in X office, we will consider you were a diplomat, and we will not prosecute you. Enjoy the rest of your day, and sorry to have bothered you with this matter”Report

If, instead of having a daughter, Mr Hoda had murdered someone on October 26, 1994, I doubt the USA would argue “well, Yemen had terminated your post, but don’t worry, since the paperwork had not yet been received in X office, we will consider you were a diplomat, and we will not prosecute you.

I actually made this same argument in discussing it with a friend yesterday. I think it’s absolutely correct.Report

Depends. Did he have the ability to call up people and have the paperwork torn up without the US knowing?

Worse, the ugly reality is we may not be looking at a binary situation, where he either has DI or not.

Normally I’m in favor of handing out green cards and citizenship FAR more than we currently do. But the thing about giving out citizenship to everyone who wants it is she didn’t, and maybe still doesn’t.Report

If the circumstances were similar, except that her father was a Belarusian diplomat and she’d gone to Russia to take part in the annexation of the Ukraine, how would the pro and anti sides differ?Report

ISIS’ is mostly known for committing war crimes (including genocide) and calling for genocide.

You need to go multiple rungs below the Russians in order to reach that depth, imho we’re into Nazi territory.

She’s like someone who knows death camps have been set up and is just thrilled with the idea, so thrilled that she goes to help and repeatedly calls for them to be set up here. That’s what it means to call for all Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.Report

We do. Historically being a for-real-Nazi is a ticket to the gov making a serious effort to kick you out of the country if you didn’t have citizenship and it’s also a ticket to the gov making a serious effort to remove your citizenship even if they’d granted it decades ago.

Further “supporter” could mean someone who votes for something out of ignorance. She’s well past “supporter” and deep into “being a member” territory.

Afaict she, personally, has publicly advocated and tried to inspire murder and mass murder. She, personally, has supplied aid and comfort to our enemies who were engaged in various war crimes, and she did so apparently because they were engaged in various war crimes.

Chip: …there are good people on both sides.

No doubt true. However “just wanting to help Muslims kill all non-Muslims” makes it seem like we’re past needing to worry about that here.

I get that life sucks for her right now. She’s been beaten, raped, and tortured for not being loyal enough to ISIS and when she joined up she thought that would only be done to other people. I get that a lot of this is her parents fault, she was raised fundy so they probably skipped saying “when we say depend on god we don’t actually mean depend on god”. I get that she thought God was on her side and only the unbelievers were going to suffer and die.

However, while she may have “decided to do this as a teenager”, she was 20 years old when she left the States. Everything she did was as an adult. She choose this… and I don’t see any good reason to take her back. She worked very hard to create her current situation and being a Nazi is supposed to have serious consequences.

And as long as I’m on the subject, “good reason to take her back” would basically be some sort of benefit to society. Creating general peace via a general amnesty would be a good reason. However ISIS still doesn’t want peace and they’re not numerous enough in the US to make that necessary. If she wants to come back then let her try to copy John Walker and make a prison sentence deal. That would showcase lots of good things, not the least that she’s accepting responsibility for her actions.Report

Yes, but there is a difference between an Isis member and a For-Real Isis member, don’t you think?

I mean, there’s a lot of guys who wear swastikas and read Mein Kampf and make the Heil Hitler salute and speak earnestly about killing Jews and donate money to the Nazi cause and even go out on weekends to train with weapons in the woods, but that doesn’t make them For Real Nazis, any more than someone who calls herself an Isis member is.

How do we know she isn’t just doing this for the lulz, y’know, to own the smug self righteous libs who really, are to blame here.

I bet if she came back she would go to Panera bread and drive a minivan like anyone else.Report

Chip: …but that doesn’t make them For Real Nazis, any more than someone who calls herself an Isis member is.

Very true. To actually join ISIS she’d have to sneak into ISIS controlled territory and offer her services to them. Problem is that’s what she did.

Similarly we aren’t actively at war with the current Nazis, who are more of a pathetic joke now than a brutal force out there committing war crimes. We’d take the guys with Swastika tattoos a lot more seriously if this were the 1940’s and their army were out there creating corpses. We’d especially take it seriously if a guy with a Swastika tattoo fled the country to join Hitler’s army or to help run a death camp.

Chip: I bet if she came back she would go to Panera bread and drive a minivan like anyone else.

Agreed. Similarly the local guys who worked in the Death Camps in Poland had pretty normal lives after the allies took the camps apart. However those guys didn’t change countries for the purpose of making a death camp function.

And the only reason we didn’t charge people like that was because there were far too many of them. Stalin wanted to execute about 50k.

If this were the 1940’s and there were real Nazis around engaged in genocide and we were at war with them and some local skinheads went to Germany to help them engage in genocide, then we’d have the equiv of what she did. And if memory serves we did have that sort of thing happen and we treated the people involved seriously, and appropriately.

Where are you going with this? When you said “treat supporters of ISIS and Nazis the same” were you trying to suggest that the modern day Nazis aren’t jokes and should be treated seriously?Report

Chip: Nazi and Klansmen pose a far more serious threat to America than ISIS.

How do you figure?

We have a formal declaration of war on ISIS because they’re so strong and dangerous we need the army to deal with them. Trump is in the process of learning, just like Obama before him, that you can’t pull the troops out without ISIS winning.

If we’re going to count corpses over the last 20 years then the Nazis have… what? Dylann Roof? How many followers willing to kill or die does he have? How does that even begin to compare to 911 or ISIS threatening to overthrow countries?

If Nazis declare a national march they’ll be vastly outnumbered by SJW and local law enforcement. They’re so weak and so rare that SSJ need to fake incidents just so they have something to oppose.Report

I also really don’t entirely understand the resistance to having her return and then throwing the book at her. People seem to have an intuition that this is doing her a favor, and is thus bad, but I don’t share it.

I think @dark-matter is possibly right that she doesn’t understand the reality of what she’d be returning to (a lengthy federal prison sentence), but that’s one thing we certainly aren’t and shouldn’t be constrained by.Report

I think it’s some variant of “you don’t get to run off, renounce your citizenship, join an opposing army, provide aid and comfort to the soldiers in this opposing army (if not actively fight against the US), and then, when this opposing army loses, get to come back and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.”

I also really don’t entirely understand the resistance to having her return and then throwing the book at her. People seem to have an intuition that this is doing her a favor, and is thus bad, but I don’t share it.

I think they suspect that the assumption that the book in question will be thrown is a bad one.

She’s gone through enough. She made a mistake. She understands that what she did was wrong. Now you want her to come back just so you can engage in your little “Orange Is The New Black” lesbian fantasy for her? What the hell is wrong with you?

Maybe the problem isn’t that she joined up with ISIS but that people like you demand punishment for crimes that you can’t even prove happened.Report

And for that matter, there are plenty of cases where Americans did renounce their citizenship, join an opposing army, and when that army lost, come back and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship. The Confederates, the Abraham Lincoln brigade, even Tokyo Rose was treated like a citizen.Report

I googled “should returning ISIS soldiers be charged” and, you know what? There are a ton of debates happening in Europe over whether or not they should be.

I think that if people were confident that she’d have the book thrown at her they might be more open to having her come back… but let’s say that there are good odds that the book will not be thrown at her.

Should she be allowed back if the book wouldn’t be thrown at her?Report

We prosecute citizens for criminal activity all the time. There are benefits of citizenship to be sure, but immunity to prosecution for treason, material support of terrorism, and the like is definitely not among them [1].

Tokyo Rose was convicted of treason and spent a decade in prison. She was later pardoned, though, but, like, many years after her sentence was completed.

[1] My understanding is that Muthana did not commit treason due to the extremely narrow meaning of that term in US law, but that’s hardly the only charge available.Report

Jaybird: It’s not that sending them to prison is doing them a favor. It’s that they have no confidence that she’ll go.

Her current lifestyle is living with other ISIS follower refugees. That includes watching friends’ children occasionally die because of lack of medical care. It may also include things like being beaten, raped, tortured and not having enough food.

I think there’s an argument she would indeed be better off in prison here than there and there’s a stronger argument her son is better off here even if she’s in prison.

However yes, it’s not at all clear she’d end up in prison. She’s gone from claiming her Twitter statements were because she was pissed her first husband got killed to claiming she never wrote them and someone more radical was using her account. Absent that we have… simply running off to join ISIS? How many years is that? I assume we have zero witnesses for anything she’s done while there so no doubt she’ll claim to have been tasked with feeding widows and orphans.

Also from a “money” standpoint a trial would be expensive as would keeping her in prison for decades. I don’t see why she’s worth the money if she’s not a citizen and/or renounced her citizenship.Report

My view is that the rule of law is important, especially when it’s as threatened as it is today. I have no sympathy for her; you know that if ISIS had its way, I’d be among the first to go. But if she’s legally a citizen, she gets to come back and then get thrown in prison, and her son gets to grow up as an American. Which may be what she’s after; even genuinely terrible people may care about their kids.Report

You can’t trust moral arguments because they always somehow manage to affirm your awful, ill-considered priors, and you ought to rely upon my enlightened priors instead but you can’t because you’re hopelessly biased and can’t be neutral and fair like me.

So the technical legal arguments are all that our system of government really has, and for that matter it’s all it ought to have.Report

Speaking of Canada, here is an article about how Canada is dealing with returning ISIS people.

It’s a fact check article dealing with the question: “Are Liberals welcoming ISIS returnees to Canada with open arms?”

As is Canada’s way, their answer to the question is that the assumption is “a lot of baloney.”

(I copied and pasted that, by the way.)

But here’s some of the stuff from the middle:

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Wednesday that the government has identified about 250 people with links to Canada who are suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activity .

This could involve front-line fighting, training, logistical support, fundraising or studying at extremist-influenced schools. Yet the number who have returned to Canada has remained largely unchanged at around 60 over the past two years, suggesting there has not been a sudden influx of terrorists into the country.

Still, the government has refused to say much about those 60 individuals, including who they are, where they travelled, what they may have done, and what the government is doing about them.

You see Europe doing this and Canada doing this and you have people explaining that, after the Civil War, people were allowed to get back to their lives… well, you might have reason to think that the book might not be thrown at her when she comes back.

Which makes the question “Should she be allowed to come back and get back to doing whatever she was doing before she left?”

Which is a significantly different question that is short-circuited by the discovery that, nope, she wasn’t a citizen in the first place and she got her passport under fraudulent circumstances.Report

Jaybird: If we agree that it is a narrow legal question rather than a moral one, what does that letter tell us?

Probably that she’s screwed. The gov decided to make an example of her after she joined ISIS. Her actions were an invitation for the gov to put her life under a microscope and see what they could use against her. Not having a rock-solid claim to citizenship qualified.

At best she files a lawsuit and maybe gets her case resolved in the next 10-20 years or so because the gov will footdrag and the real purpose is to screw her over. So her father’s case will be rejected because she’s not him, he can’t send her money because she’s with ISIS, and it will be years before she gets the resources to even start the process.

Reading that letter… the 2nd to last paragraph is pretty special. “You have the right to a hearing… you must notify this office in writing within 60 days… of this notice”. Letter dated Jan 15, 2016. So during the time she could have appealed this issue she was busy burning her passport and trying to destroy America.Report

By denying an expedited ruling the judge is essentially agreeing with the government’s claim that she’s not a US citizen. Presumably then, the fact that she became a member of ISIS is irrelevant, as is the fact that she’s currently living in a refugee camp. I’m not sure why you think her self-awareness is an issue. She’s arguing that she’s a US citizen, not that she’s innocent of supporting terrorists. The government disagrees.Report

We’re talking about someone who seriously expected her god to overthrow various governments and who looked at ISIS and saw white hats. IMHO a lack of awareness of the reality of the situation is expected.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.